The Human Rights Commission have created a ridiculous engagement survey that lists various mental disorders as genders for participants to choose from. Instead of being asked if the participant is male or female they list no less than TEN options to choose from.

So what are the ten choices that the ‘woke’ Human Rights Commission have included as made up genders to choose from?

Male

Female

Transgender

Takatapui

Genderfluid

Non-binary

Agender

Don’t know

Prefer not to say

Self-describe

Six of the gender options in the survey are completely made up. One option is that the person doesn’t know what gender they are and the other is that they would prefer not to say. There is zero scientific or biological basis to the six other options. They are lies and falsehoods created to make those who suffer from a mental disorder feel that their delusion is real.

Read my lips. There are only two genders, male and female.

This is both arrogant and ignorant, unless Atkins is deliberately stirring up intolerance.

1 Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.

1.1 Members of a particular gender considered as a group

1.2 The fact or condition of belonging to or identifying with a particular gender.

Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e., the state of being male, female, or an intersex variation), sex-based social structures (i.e., gender roles), or gender identity.

Most cultures use a gender binary, having two genders (boys/men and girls/women);[4] those who exist outside these groups fall under the umbrella term non-binary or genderqueer.

Historically, many if not most societies have recognized only two distinct, broad classes of gender roles, a binary of masculine and feminine, largely corresponding to the biological sexes of male and female.

However, some societies have historically acknowledged and even honored people who fulfill a gender role that exists more in the middle of the continuum between the feminine and masculine polarity. For example, the Hawaiian māhū, who occupy “a place in the middle” between male and female, or the Ojibwe ikwekaazo, “men who choose to function as women”, or ininiikaazo, “women who function as men”.

The hijras of India and Pakistan are often cited as third gender. Another example may be the muxe found in the state of Oaxaca, in southern Mexico. The Bugis people of Sulawesi, Indonesia have a tradition that incorporates all the features above.

In addition to these traditionally recognized third genders, many cultures now recognize, to differing degrees, various non-binary gender identities. People who are non-binary (or genderqueer) have gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine. They may identify as having an overlap of gender identities, having two or more genders, having no gender, having a fluctuating gender identity, or being third gender or other-gendered.

Recognition of non-binary genders is still somewhat new to mainstream Western culture, and non-binary people may face increased risk of assault, harassment, and discrimination.

In her post Atkins promoted harassment and discrimination, and both were evident in the comments on her post. The first comment:

I think a lot of people are getting very tired of a small minority inflicting this time wasting insanity on the majority and would like an “F Off” option.

That appears to breach WO commenting rules, but they apply them selectively.

The HRC Community Engagement stated:

The purpose of the Human Rights Commission (HRC) is to promote and protect human rights of all people in Aotearoa New Zealand. We work for a free, fair, safe and just New Zealand, where diversity is valued, and human dignity and rights are respected.

That should include the right to choose individuals to choose what gender they identify with, and to not be subject to the imposition of rigid binary gender options, or to be ridiculed, abused and demeaned by those who are intolerant of differences.

People who feel their gender doesn’t fit within a rigid male/female construct are in a small minority, but they face difficulties due to discrimination and worse from the majority.

For the first time, wellbeing data for people of different sexual identities has been collected as part of the 2018 General Social Survey (GSS), Stats NZ said today.

This information is an important step towards better reflecting the diversity across New Zealand in official statistics.

A person’s sexual identity is how they think of their own sexuality and which terms they identify with.

96.5% identifying as heterosexual or straight

1.9% identifying as bisexual

1.1% identifying as gay/lesbian

0.5% identified as other identities (includes terms such as takatāpui, asexual, pansexual, others)

3.5% seems a small number, but that equates to about 168,000 people in New Zealand.

And it looks like it could increase as strict as oppressive legal and social pressures continue to change.

By age group:

18-24: 0.8% gay/lesbian, 5.4% bisexual (total 6.4%)

24-44: 1.5% gay/lesbian, 2.6% bisexual (total 4.1%)

45-64: 1.2% gay/lesbian, 0.9% bisexual (total 2.1%)

65+: 0.6% gay/lesbian, 0.1% bisexual (total 0.7%)

The higher total numbers in the 18-24 age group are probably due to different factors, including reducing social pressures on being ‘different’, and greater experimentation as young adults.

Most of those identifying as bisexual when young seem to decide on heterosexual as they get older.

It is likely these numbers are also affected by different life risks and expectancies.

Higher levels of discrimination are not surprising, but it’s not as high as I thought it would be.

Discriminated against in the last year:

39% of bisexual people

34% of gay/lesbian people

16% of of people identifying as straight or heterosexual

Heterosexual people feeling discriminated against may seem odd, but comments at WO give some indication as to why this may be:

By giving groups additional rights they in fact create other groups with fewer rights. Gay people, black people, women all get special privileges and whenever a new group self identifies they get additional rights. Human rights are individual, and apply to everyone.

They aren’t given ‘additional rights’, they are given rights that the majority have enjoyed.

What about pale, stale and male rights, perhaps we should not be compelled to die on the battlefield protecting everyone else rights?

I doubt that AWB has risked their life on a battlefield protecting anyone’s rights, let alone minority rights.

Other findings:

Bisexual people less satisfied with life

One-third of bisexual people report poor mental wellbeing

Gay/lesbian and bisexual people find it harder to express their identity

Gay/lesbian people the most socially connected with friends and less lonely

David Farrar posted on it at Kiwiblog: Stats Sexuality data – he stated facts and little else, but comments were heavily leaning towards intolerance and abuse, as well as claiming to be victims.

‘the deity formerly known as nigel6888’:

So we are turning over all of society for precisely nobody’s benefit

Good oh!

These weirdos can’t even manage 1% but we let them drive social policy. Remarkable!

Nickc2:

And all this PC BS for such small numbers. Why? All in the name of inclusiveness as espoused by our PM perhaps?
What a joke! Don’t forget, some of our laws are written around such garbage, not to mention the dreaded ‘hate speech’.

tknorriss:

Yeah. It isn’t cool to be known as straight, white, or male anymore.

So, I suspect a lot of young people would answer any way to avoid those options.

93.6% of young people surveyed didn’t avoid the straight option. I think it’s more likely that non-binary gender options are under-represented.

skyblue:

So why are we wasting so much money on homosexuals and other associated weirdos putting things into place to placate them?

Comments at Kiwiblog seem to have moved further towards a small minority of recently disaffected and increasingly grumpy people, mostly males. They are far from representative of the general population, but intolerance of differences in sexuality is still rife in some pockets of society.

Fortunately there’s a lot more understanding and tolerance of differences in sexuality generally these days, especially in Parliament, in the Public Service and in law.

Consenting adults should be free to choose their sexuality free from discrimination and abuse.

Personally I have always felt straight or heterosexual, but I’m happy to let others choose for themselves what their sexuality or gender is to them.

Perhaps it’s a double epiphany, perhaps it’s political pragmatism, but Brian Tamaki has apologised for past remarks about gay people, and he and his wife (and leader of the new NZ Coalition Party) “are encouraging respectful treatment and understanding of gay people.”

“After years of anti-gay rhetoric, Brian and Hannah Tamaki are encouraging respectful treatment and understanding of gay people.”

Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki has apologised for years of offensive remarks about gay people.

In an extraordinary admission of regret, Tamaki said: “I said ‘I want to include something with the gay community’. We don’t want our children or our children’s children to carry those unresolved issues.”

“I think everybody remembers 2004,” he said, referring to the Enough is Enough marches against the civil union bill.

The self-proclaimed bishop voiced some regret at how he and Destiny had behaved in the early 2000s.

He said if he had another chance: “we’d do some things differently. It has never been my intent to cause hurt or harm.”

He blamed news media for what he called misconceptions about the church.

After the event, Tamaki said some people told him he shouldn’t have apologised.

“But I’m bigger than that.”

He said he was sincere about treating members of the Rainbow community with kindness.

He was asked if he believed gay people went to hell.

“I don’t go around talking like that. I don’t say that. I’ve never said that.”

TVNZ’s Sunday had an item on what is commonly referred to as gay conversion therapy in New Zealand. Mostly religious groups offer therapy that claims or implies people can be taught not to be homosexual.

Usual religious coercions like promising heaven for complying and threatening hell if the ‘sinning’ continues are used.

Therapy is being offered to “cure” people who find themselves attracted to the same sex, where their attraction is contrary to their own religious beliefs.

TVNZ’s Sunday programme spoke with three gay men about the conversion therapy they’ve been through.

Undercover footage of this therapy, or “spiritual healing”, or “praying the gay away”, shows the claims being made about its potential to cure same sex attraction.

One therapist says: “Your attraction can absolutely be changed. We need to rewire your brain, and it is completely doable.”

Another therapist who Sunday spoke to undercover claims: “No one is born that way and so if that’s the case, it must be possible to change. Alcoholics change, thieves change, all sorts of people change.”

Of course once you’re dead there’s not much chance of complaining for being given false expectations or hopes.

But there’s a real chance of hellish suffering from guilt and failure while homosexuals are subjected to psychological mistreatment while they are alive.

It’s difficult to appreciate what it’s like for a homosexual person living in a disapproving environment, especially a religious one.

I think the best way of understanding what it might be like being a homosexual subject to conversion therapy is to imagine what it might be like as a heterosexual being given coercive therapy to turn you homosexual.

Or in the context of a political blog, as a right winger try to imagine what it might be like getting therapy that tries to convert you into a leftie, or as a left winger try to imagine a conversion to the right.

I’m neither so I can imagine what it would be like getting therapy for converting me to a fixed political belief (shudder).

It is unlikely to feel anywhere near as much as what homosexuals must experience, but trying to convert an innate sexuality must really risk causing severe difficulties for the subject (one of those interviewed came out of therapy and attempted suicide).

Dear Readers due to my inexperience I phrased a question poorly in the recent Whaleoil readership survey so the results were inaccurate.

In order to get an accurate picture I have redone that part of the survey and hope that you will all be so kind as to answer it for us.I have also added the option of not answering the sexual preference question.

Unusually for a survey SB has also included her predictions for what she thinks results will be.

SB is mistaken if she thinks she “will get an accurate picture” from a self-selecting online poll, no matter how many times she re-arranges the questions.

There is no way of determining what accuracy you can get from polls like this. They are generally regarded as totally unreliable, except by media organisations trying to make headlines and stories.

In particular asking a question about sexual identity is at the best of times difficult to get accurate results. Particularly with deeply personal questions (at least there’s an option for “None of your business that question is too personal”) it’s well known that people often avoid answering accurately.

I am asking the question because Whaleoil was a big supporter of the gay marriage bill but we have been accused of being homophobic by the left. I am interested to see how many gay readers we have for that reason.

It sounds like she may be using the survey to try and show that Whale Oil is not “homophobic” but given that there are a number of authors and many commenters the survey makes no attempt to evaluate homophobia.

The results from the first inaccurate question, indicated that we have seven gay readers.

No it didn’t indicate that at all.

Typically there are many more readers than active participants on blogs, so a survey is unlikely to give any meaningful measure of the sexual preference of readers.

Seven respondents indicated they were gay, whether they are ot not, that is all.

There is no assurance given of privacy of information – I don’t think Whale Oil would in this case misuse information provided by readers but many people are very wary of what they divulge on the Internet, as they should be. That will increase self selection and in particular self non-selection.

The survey may be ‘fun’ for SB but there can be no confidence in getting anything like an accurate picture of the sexual identity of it’s readers.

And even though some readers may be prepared to reveal their sexual identity that does nothing to determine whether straight or gay or bi or ‘other’ participants see Whale Oil as homophobic or not.

Russel Norman appears to be choosing one principle over another in his clash with Colin Craig over Norman’s comments at the Big Gay Out

Colin Craig looks determined to press ahead with legal action against Russel Norman, claiming he was defamed by what Norman said. The allegedly offending words:

“Now the thing about Colin Craig is he thinks that a woman’s place is in the kitchen and a gay man’s place is in the closet.”

Both Craig and Norman have just been interviewed on TVNZ’s Breakfast. Their positions appear to be entrenched, with Craig promising to carry through his legal threat if Norman doesn’t apologise.

He says Norman “couldn’t be more wrong. The statement is factually untrue.” And Craig wants to see the standard of political debate raised a lot higher than it is at the moment.

In response Norman quoted Craig on gay issues saying it was it was “disgusting politics of hate, of saying these people are different” and that he is “Standing up for the kind of place we want to live in”.

The other Green Party co-leader, Metiria Turei, is supporting Russel Norman’s stance.

“I think Russel and right and the Green Party is right to stand up for women and for gay men and to identify offensive language, offensive statements, when we see them.”

And Craig…

…says he’ll announce his next steps on Friday, but court action is the likely path.

“I am very determined to raise standard of debate and I think I’ve shown that through previous actions but we’re just going to keep on and we’re going to make sure people are accurately debating, that robust discussion is honest and fair discussion.

Norman has highlighted controversial things Craig has actually said about homosexuals but is not claiming his Big Gay Out comments were intended literally, they were representative of offensive attitudes.

Whether it is defamation or not looks to be up to the lawyers.

But there seems to be a clash of principles here for Norman. He is claiming a principle of standing up to people like Craig who like make “offensive” comments.

And Craig is claiming a principle of standing up to politicians like Norman who say untrue things about opponents and wants better standards in political debate – something the Greens have stood up for in the past.

In this case Norman is making personal attacks on Craig, and it appears has falsely claimed what Craig thinks. This is a political tactic that annoys the Greens when aimed at them, but they appear to have decided to delve in the dark arts of politics.

This is an interesting clash, ignoring one principle to stand up for another.

I usually avoid religion, but this news is a positive step (for a Catholic pope). Pope Francis seems to be a modern and enlightened pontiff – to an extent. But he showed he had limits – that put gay people in an impossible situation.

Pope Francis says gay people should not be marginalised, instead they should be integrated into society, in some of the most conciliatory remarks by a pontiff on the issue of homosexuality.

‘Who am I to judge?’

In response to a question about reports of a “gay lobby” in the Vatican, after it suffered a string of scandals over paedophile priests and corruption in the administration of the Holy See, Francis said:

“If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge him?

“The problem is not having this orientation. We must be brothers. The problem is lobbying by this orientation, or lobbies of greedy people, political lobbies, Masonic lobbies, so many lobbies. This is the worst problem,” he said.

“You see a lot written about the gay lobby. I still have not seen anyone in the Vatican with an identity card saying they are gay,” he joked.

Sounds very good. But it only went so far, there are still some very conservative limits.

In fact there is a major catch – he won’t judge people for being gay but judges gay behaviour as a sin.

Francis defended all gays from discrimination but also referred to the Catholic Church’s universal Catechism, which says that while homosexual orientation is not sinful, homosexual acts are.

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says they should not be marginalised because of this (orientation) but that they must be integrated into society,” he said, speaking in Italian and using the word “gay”, instead of “homosexual” which previous pontiffs mainly used.

So that’s contradictory – being gay is ok, acting gay is a sin.

It’s like saying being Catholic is fine but praying is forbidden.

And another conservative church position is still entrenched.

‘No’ to women priests is definitive

Addressing the issue of women priests, the pope said, “The Church has spoken and says ‘no’ … that door is closed.” It was the first time he had spoken in public on the subject.

“We cannot limit the role of women in the Church to altar girls or the president of a charity, there must be more …,” he said in answer to a question.

“But with regards to the ordination of women, the Church has spoken and says ‘no’. Pope John Paul said so with a formula that was definitive. That door is closed,” he said, referring to a document by the late pontiff which said the ban was part of the infallible teaching of the Church.

So the pope has caught up with the mid nineteen hundreds. Can he modernise the Catholic Church any more than that?